What's to stop someone...

[calypso15]

There is a rule that prevents them from having one.

"A staff is a long shaft of wood that stores several spells."

Now you can pretend that this means something else or that it is not a rule, but that's not RAW.

With Rule 0, cottages could fly on a normal basis as well in a given game.

Nothing wrong with a DM allowing one spell per staff, but that is a house rule.

Someone already pointed out that your interpretation can't be right, as the DMG contains several staves that only contain 2 (or a "couple") spells.

Calypso

 

[eris404]

Although I don't personally see anything wrong with a staff having a single spell, the SRD does say:

"Staffs: A staff has a number of different (but often related) spell effects. A newly created staff has 50 charges, and each use of the staff depletes one or more of those charges.

Wands: A wand is a short stick imbued with the power to cast a specific spell. A newly created wand has 50 charges, and each use of the wand depletes one of those charges."

BUT, since wands can only hold spells of 4th level or lower, then I think it would be reasonable to make a staff of a single spell that happened to be higher than 4th level. I'm not sure there is a that much of a benefit to making a staff of magic missiles based on the cost though.

 

[KarinsDad]

Someone already pointed out that your interpretation can't be right, as the DMG contains several staves that only contain 2 (or a "couple") spells.

Nonsense.

In fact, I pointed out that WotC already indicated that several meant two or more (to them) in my first post on the minimum subject.

"Staffs: A staff has a number of different (but often related) spell effects."

This is repeated over and over again in various places in various ways in the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

I've already stated an alternate interpretation of this line. You shrugged it off by saying "Just because you can interpret something in a different way does not mean that such an interpretation is a reasonable one." In that sentance, you yourself admit that its a valid interpretation, you just don't consider it becuase you feel it's unreasonable. But last time I checked, Rules as Writen and Rules as Reasonable were not the same thing. Rules as KarinsDad Interprets Them is another thing entirely.

"Staffs: A staff has a number of different (but often related) spell effects."

How exactly does your interpretation work here?

We are takling RAW here, not DG Rules.


And actually, I do not admit that it is valid. Unreasonable and valid do not mix.

 

[tensen]

"A staff is a long shaft of wood that stores several spells."

This sentence indicates that staves require a minimum of three spells in them (three generally being the minimum definition of the word "several").

Now, this does not mean that a staff might not only be capable of casting a single spell (e.g. in the case that one spell needs one charge and the other spells need two charges and there is only one charge remaining), but the staff still has a minimum of three different spells in it (regardless of whether they can still be cast).

My staff can cast.. get this.
magic missile, magic missile, and magic missile.
Does it really violate the rule?

Magic item creation is well not a major part of the game. If the player and the DM agrees, it is alright for them. The issue we are talking about is more of a houserule discussion, this area is hardly well justified to be a hard and fast rule.

 

[Deset Gled]

"Staffs: A staff has a number of different (but often related) spell effects."

How exactly does your interpretation work here?

A Staff of Fire can be used to cast a Fireball spell that does 8d6, 9d6 or 10d6 damage. These three effects are all related (they are all damage from the same spell), but are also quite different (especially to the person in the middle of the fireball).

 

[KarinsDad]

A Staff of Fire can be used to cast a Fireball spell that does 8d6, 9d6 or 10d6 damage. These three effects are all related (they are all damage from the same spell), but are also quite different (especially to the person in the middle of the fireball).

Actually, these are the exact SAME spell effects (fire damage from a Fireball), just differing amounts of damage. The fact that spells have variable factors such as range, duration, damage, etc. does not make them have different spell effects. Spell effects has a specific meaning in the game system. For example, Resistance Fire 10 works the exact same way against a 8D6 Fireball as against a 10D6 Fireball. The first spell effect here is fire resistance and the second spell effect here is fire damage. Now these are related but different spell effects.


But, whatever.

If you are determined to play semantics, I cannot stop you.

We both know what the rule is.

 

[Nail]

We both know what the rule is.

And that would be: "A staff ....stores several spells."

I'd hardly consider this a tightly written rule. There's enough room to charge a Tarrasque through it, fer gawds sake.

For example: If your wizard casts four magic missile spells, has he cast "several spells"? What if he cast 50 such spells?

 

[calypso15]

"Staffs: A staff has a number of different (but often related) spell effects."

How exactly does your interpretation work here?

We are takling RAW here, not DG Rules.

And actually, I do not admit that it is valid. Unreasonable and valid do not mix.

I have a staff with a number of different spell effects. That number is 1. All the spells in the staff are related.

Calypso

 

[Len]

If you are determined to play semantics, I cannot stop you.

Huh? This is the forum devoted to the meaning of the D&D rules. Isn't that what we're discussing?